Why so mean?
nostr:nprofile1qqs0m40g76hqmwqhhc9hrk3qfxxpsp5k3k9xgk24nsjf7v305u6xffcpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgtcwc656e knows more about #Bitcoin code than you nostr:nprofile1qqsr9cvzwc652r4m83d86ykplrnm9dg5gwdvzzn8ameanlvut35wy3gpzdmhxw309aex2mrp0yhx5c34x5hxxmmdqyxhwumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmvqyg8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnvv9hxgpywa92, and more than most contributors to Core currently. This is a fact. Breaking consensus changes that would manifest in a hard fork is not what he does. With Knots, he only patches relay policy code.
Besides, as a reminder, on March 11, 2013, Bitcoin suffered an accidental hard fork due to an incompatibility between nodes running version 0.7 and 0.8 of the Bitcoin Core client. The disagreement between Luke Dashjr and Gavin Andresen centered on how to resolve the crisis:
Andresen initially argued that the market should decide (i.e., let the longest chain win), but Luke insisted this would be an unnecessary hard fork and that network safety required actively coordinating miners to downgrade to 0.7.
Luke’s core argument was technical: if the majority of miners adopted the new 0.8 fork, it would produce a permanent, incompatible chain split, an actual hard fork. But the 0.7 chain was backwards-compatible with all nodes. By persuading miners to temporarily downgrade, the fork could be healed, sacrificing only a small number of recent blocks rather than splitting the network. Pieter Wuille and others ultimately agreed with Luke’s reasoning, and, thanks to rapid coordination, the majority of the network downgraded, cleanly reuniting the blockchain.
Luke had his bad days too, but to claim that he's gonna hardfork Bitcoin chain is dumb at best, malicious at worst.